I don't mind the cards in M'44 and such. But in more ambitious wargames? Why do issues like the following, from a BGG review of the currently fashionable Combat Commander, not make such games utterly unfun?

QuoteA larger problem we both had with the game was the lack of several mechanics that seemed to us as basic necessities. Well, to be more precise, its not that the game lacked the basics, but rather they are simulated by cards that may, or may not, be in your relatively small hand of cards when the relevant situation occurs. For example, there is a card that adds 2 to your firepower if shooting at an adjacent unit, and another card that adds 2 for shooting at a moving target. In my view, those should be standard rules not special benefits that only occur sometimes.

This became clear in the following situation. I was holding a building in the middle of a clearing with a squad and a light machine gun. A half squad of Russian infantry was able to cross the open ground toward the building, ending thier move adjacent to it. Now, I'd imagine that 5 men running across open ground and trying to scratch out some cover just outside a building would get mowed down by a machine gun supported by a full squad. But even with a Fire order, I couldn't do anything. Without the cards to buff up my firepower against adjacent or moving targets, I was simply flipping a card versus the Russians' card flip, with me starting with a minus 3 disadvantage. That just doesn't make sense. The squad in the building with the machine gun should have a clear advantage.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/174054

All I know is that this excuse...

QuoteI wouldn't mind that too much. I do sometimes wonder why it is that everyone is permanently prepared for the enemy's slightest move, why all the weapons are always pointed in the right direction, why no-one seems to be covering other approaches, and why the attacking unit can never surprise the defender with it's dash. It's unlikely there will be absolutely positively zero cover after all, and the MG team might be reloading with a fresh belt or changing barrels. Most times I'm happy that the randomness of the dice simulate all these, but I can easily rationalise this situation.

...doesn't cut it.

That sounds utterly unfun.


EDIT:
This whole platoon level gaming is not going anywhere. It has structural problems.
It´s as artificial as any Warhammer Battle.

IF Elliot comes along, I will elaborate, there´s some finer points to be made that I feel unsure about making without his aid.

The platoon (squad?) level? You mean regardless of cards?

I don't know Combat Commander or indeed any tactical-level CDGs. To my eyes the excuse is plausible--in squad leader you can roll a 12 against a squad charging right up to you over open ground, after all--but the devil is in the details. How common are the "+2" cards? Are they multipurpose (i.e. do the +2's appear on cards that can be used for other things)? How many cards do you get in your hand? How many can you play in one "go"?

There's always a bit of "gaminess" in CDGs (while at the same time offering benefits in realism in some ways), however the ones I've played--Hannibal and We the People--are pretty awesome. Note, though: strategic level.

Well yes, El, but I suspect the diff is that what you can do in a CDG like CC is MAJORLY defined by the cards. It's in the cards (heh), or you cannot do it, period. That's totally different from fumbling a die roll.

Fumbling is jamming the magazine while trying to shoot. Not having a card is watching the Russkis coming right at you, yet somehow finding you can't do a thing.

Or so it looks from the review. I'm ready to be educated.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe platoon (squad?) level? You mean regardless of cards?

Basically. I´d like to pontificate a bit about that, but I wait a little bit, till we have the CDG issue resolved. Elsewise: overlap and confusion of arguments.

@ CDGs: In BattleLore, units can fight back, even when not activated. whom or what I activate is up to me. In BorgiGames there´s only little in regards of actions "I just cannot take".

For example, there´s a card that let´s all archers fire at a bonus, or let´s make all cavalry charge at an even more obscene bonus.
BUT: I can move and attack with cavalry EVERY round if I´m using my cards prudently. Also, there are other special cards that let you do something of your own design, but without bonus, like: Acitvate all light units!-> I could turn this into an all archers fire! action by smartly choosing the pieces.

CC Does sound a lot more inflexible in that regard, as Elliot said the devil is in the details. The fallacy in my eye is...let´s put it differently:

The elegance of BorGames is in the abstraction of distances and unit sizes. Things get messy at...squad/platoon level

I would say: just avoid CC:E. That's my conclusion after reading the referenced thread and looking at who rated the game. (E.g., David Desjardins, whose tastes only tangentially intersect mine, loves the game; a number of familiar grognards such Charles Vasey rated it low.) It says nothing about CDGs in general, but again I feel the concept is best applied to higher-level games. Personally if I had more time/space for games I'd surely take a closer look at Twilight Struggle. Certainly for the price of CC:E, you'd do far better with Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, a true classic which has been reissued recently.

Quote from: SettembriniFor example, there´s a card that let´s all archers fire at a bonus, or let´s make all cavalry charge at an even more obscene bonus.
BUT: I can move and attack with cavalry EVERY round if I´m using my cards prudently. Also, there are other special cards that let you do something of your own design, but without bonus, like: Acitvate all light units!-> I could turn this into an all archers fire! action by smartly choosing the pieces.

Isn't that another way of saying: "The best I can hope is to horde cards in such a way that a coherent attack / logical tactic is possible." In other words: "The best I can hope is to turn a CD wargame into a non-CD wargame." ?

QuoteThe elegance of BorGames is in the abstraction of distances and unit sizes.

This feels right, ditto what El said re. strategic level. Funny, I actually read a Hannibal review last week, and it sounded intuitively appealing.

QuoteThings get messy at...squad/platoon level

So now we want to hear more about that.

Alas.

I daresay Platoon/Squad games are  adressing a questionable need.

Man vs Man (in WWII, mostly)!

Platoons don´t attack.
Platoons don´t defend.

Companies do. In WWII, often Battailions/Regiments did.

Maybe you get what this is about with just some throwaway thoughts from me:

The problem of tanks in these games highlights it.

Armour Regiments fight a fight.

Divisions roll through villages.

Single tanks don´t do anything.
"Except the one time, in band camp, like, the single KV-2 stood on the bridge..." :rolleyes:

The need that is adressed by these games is the "need" to pit single pieces of hardware and few soldiers against each other. But that rips them out of the context of the engagement, out of the context of the nature of the period.

At least from my understanding.
Ellito, what´s your take on this?

EDIT: Also, the whole command process is utterly fucked up. What are you playing? The company commander? Then you have given orders, and that´s that.
Command Decision would be the way to go, but the newer games don´t go that way.

Would anybody have some platoon level gaming for WWI?
Why not?
The same reasons actually apply to WWII.

And don´t get me started on the eternal Normandy Invasion and brave US Paratroopers running around some French hexfield houses/villages which´s architecture/layout only exist in fantasy.

Would you play 12 Pikeman vs 12 Musketeers in the Schlacht am Weißen Berg?

I see. Well... if we forget single tanks for a sec, you could still play a squad game as part of a larger off-table engagement, no?

And doesn't autonomous squad/platoon skirmishing occasionally occur, by chance? Probably not in the Russian steppes, but elsewhere?

Let's talk about something specific... Skirmish Campaigns produce rules-generic scenario books for their own Arc of Fire and other games, e.g. this one:

http://mysite.verizon.net/fisherts/skirmishcampaigns/ghost/index.htm

One of the scenarios is available for download:

http://mysite.verizon.net/fisherts/skirmishcampaigns/downloads/HautFINAL.pdf

So, the company commander gave the order to hold the bridgehead, and the platoon commander (=you) tries to do just that.

Do you think this set-up is anachronistic?

Overall I think you make some good points, Sett, but my affection for Squad Leader (and indeed Sniper/Patrol, which are entirely single-man counter games) makes it hard to fully accept your argument, at least on an emotional level. The point about command structure though is well taken; unfortunately it applies at least as well to tactical ancients games and tactical naval games up to the end of the gunnery age--which is to say, the player-as-overall commander is given way too much control past the point of setting up the pieces and launching them at the enemy.

Anyway re:Hannibal, you don't just have to read a review, a version of the rules is readily available (in PDF) here
 and here

Thanks for that, El. See, the reason *I* am holding out for these games is that in a dramatic turn of events I'm about to get sucked into Flames of War in a major way. (OK, FoW is company-level, but still.) Just got the rulebook, which has utterly seductive WOTC-esque production values. More news as it happens.

double post

Re: Skirmish campaigns

Sure stuff like that happened thousand of times.

But you know what:

I´d like to play out the important engagements. Funny, isn´t it?

There´s a huge gap in wargaming and military understanding of the layperson. The more I learn, the more I´m convinved the actual war and battles were waged by Division and Corps Commanders.

In gaming, fiction and the popular image, there´s Patton & Rundstedt and then there´s Jerry & G.I.Joe.


I´d like to play out Stalingrad or the Battle of Berlin.
How does large scale urban combat look like?
Whole battallions seizing some tractor factory. Divisions slowly advancing through the Brandenburger Tor.
A regiment hiding and defending the Schultheiß Brewery.

Not some pissy squads who are left by the wayside, and have the convenient tank left with them...

Not thirteen guys running alongside a single light machine guns in the copy of an ASL map (CC:E bashing going on here) that is itself a fictionalized interpretation. EVERYTHING can happen to the guys running at the machine gun. To model that, you´d need, say Phoenix Command and an umpire, with complete character sheets.




Is there something between WiF and the eternal Bocage hopping in 60° angles?

EDIT: As of this moment, I´m inclined to say Axis & Allies: Bulge/Normandy is more meritful a simulationthan most of the squad-pusher-games.

Elliot: I used to play Hetzer: Sniper, and most of my disillusionment comes from playing that.

Quote from: SettembriniRe: Skirmish campaigns

Sure stuff like that happened thousand of times.

But you know what:

I´d like to play out the important engagements. Funny, isn´t it?

That depends on what one means by "important." You seem to say that so long as the division commander has the right battleplan, nothing matters below division level. But if those scattered grunts don't hold the tip of the bridgehead, that will have an effect higher up.

QuoteNot thirteen guys running alongside a single light machine guns in the copy of an ASL map that is itself a fictionalized interpretation. EVERYTHING can happen to the guys running at the machine gun. To model that, you´d need, say Phoenix Command and an umpire, with complete character sheets.

Something like that does seem to exist: The Face of Battle.